ORDER:

T MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgment dated 12.10.2009, passed in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2009 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1st Appellate Court'), whereby the 1^st Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by confirming the Order of the District Collector dated 02.09.2009, passed in C.C.No.539 of 2008, relating to confiscation; however, it modified the quantum of confiscation from 100% of the seized stock to 40% of the seized stock.

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the District Magistrate, for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief averments of the case are that on 04.09.2008, the District Supply Officer, Visakhapatnam (City), acting on credible information about illegal hoarding, along with the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement Department, conducted a surprise inspection at Sri Veeravalli Traders, Jabbarithota, Visakhapatnam. The accused, proprietor, was found operating without a foodgrain licence, lacking bills, sales records, and stock registers. A total of 2,794 bags (698.50 quintals) of rice were seized on-site for being stored without authorization. The seized stock was handed over to Swami Rice Traders for safe custody. A case was filed under Section 6 -A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in the Collector's Court, Visakhapatnam.

-

4. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides.

5. In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Anr, [2015 (3) SCC 123] it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:

Revisional power of the Court under Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.PC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the Court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.

6. As far as the scope of power of this Court while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another Versus Krishnaveni and another , [(1997) 4 Supreme Court Case 241], has held that in case Court notices that there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or Order is not correct, it is salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal Court in its judicial process or illegality or sentence or Order. The relevant para of the Judgment is reproduced as under:

"8. The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397 (1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or Order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal Court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or Order."

-

7. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court is to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of the